The power to "save Terri Schiavo"
Mar. 28th, 2005 09:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsHilzoy makes a brilliant post in which she points out that the Florida State Legislature, which "tried to save Terri" once, could in fact have "saved" Terri at any time. Their problem has been that they've been approaching this case from a personal point of view: that it's all about "saving Terri." If "saving Terri" were all that important to them, they could have amended FL 765.4, the section of Florida Law that outlines the procedure for determining who shall make decisions for a permanently incapacitated person.
The law is rather clear. They are, in order, (1) a court-appointed guardian, (2) the spouse, (3) the person's children, (4), the person's parents. Michael Schiavo, by going to the courts for clarification, is as far as I can tell both (1) and (2). The Guardian Ad Litem basically said that Schiavo is representing Terri's wishes adequately.
Hilzoy doesn't go into why the Florida Legislature refused to tinker with this law, but I think it needs to be spelled out: the current order is conservative tradition. After the court has turned down its option to appoint a guardian, those with the most on the line get the most authority. For centuries, spouses have been responsible for the fate of incapacitated partners, and children for the fate of incapacitated parents. Terri's parents have attempted to intervene in the adult Terri's life by legal dicta; this is an affront to conservative tradition that most people have overlooked in this whole sordid affair.
While the wingnuts go berserk about "judicial tyranny," we should applaud the judges for obeying the law, and we should applaud the legislature for not overturning thousands of years of conservative tradition.
The law is rather clear. They are, in order, (1) a court-appointed guardian, (2) the spouse, (3) the person's children, (4), the person's parents. Michael Schiavo, by going to the courts for clarification, is as far as I can tell both (1) and (2). The Guardian Ad Litem basically said that Schiavo is representing Terri's wishes adequately.
Hilzoy doesn't go into why the Florida Legislature refused to tinker with this law, but I think it needs to be spelled out: the current order is conservative tradition. After the court has turned down its option to appoint a guardian, those with the most on the line get the most authority. For centuries, spouses have been responsible for the fate of incapacitated partners, and children for the fate of incapacitated parents. Terri's parents have attempted to intervene in the adult Terri's life by legal dicta; this is an affront to conservative tradition that most people have overlooked in this whole sordid affair.
While the wingnuts go berserk about "judicial tyranny," we should applaud the judges for obeying the law, and we should applaud the legislature for not overturning thousands of years of conservative tradition.
